State of U.P. vs Party(s)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant in the Court today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Smt Sudami Devi with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 725 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur during pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that seven accused persons including the applicant were named in the F.I.R. and common and general role has been assigned to the accused applicant and other co-accused persons. He further submits that there is civil dispute between the parties and a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution to give color of criminality, whereas applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that co-accused Bhagwani Devi has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20372 of 2025. He further submits that applicant has no criminal history. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been 2 BAIL No. 33936 of 2025 touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant being lady is languishing in jail since 12.04.2025.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, and Inder Mohan Goswai and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "This Court again cautioned about a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases." In the matter of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673,the Apex Court has again held that "Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essenttial ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence."

7. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is likely to be allowed. Further considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- 3 BAIL No. 33936 of 2025 (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A I.P.C./209. B.N.S. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

8. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

9. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 7, 2025 Bhanu (Santosh Rai,J.) BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant in the Court today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Smt Sudami Devi with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 725 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur during pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that seven accused persons including the applicant were named in the F.I.R. and common and general role has been assigned to the accused applicant and other co-accused persons. He further submits that there is civil dispute between the parties and a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution to give color of criminality, whereas applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that co-accused Bhagwani Devi has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20372 of 2025. He further submits that applicant has no criminal history. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been 2 BAIL No. 33936 of 2025 touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant being lady is languishing in jail since 12.04.2025.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, and Inder Mohan Goswai and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "This Court again cautioned about a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases." In the matter of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673,the Apex Court has again held that "Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essenttial ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence."

7. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is likely to be allowed. Further considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- 3 BAIL No. 33936 of 2025 (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A I.P.C./209. B.N.S. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

8. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

9. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 7, 2025 Bhanu (Santosh Rai,J.) BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad